Tarr v. Lucio Battisti, Inc.

Background

Ellen Elizabeth Tarr brought the action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that Lucio Battisti, Inc. denies visually impaired people full and equal access to its website. Tarr filed a motion for default judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment against a defendant that has not properly responded.

Service of Process

The court denied the motion because Tarr did not properly serve Lucio Battisti, Inc. Her proof of service stated that the summons was served on “manager jane doe,” described as someone authorized by law to accept service for the company. Tarr stated that the service was made under Section 306 of the New York Business Corporation Law.

The court explained that Section 306 addresses service on a corporation’s registered agent or on the secretary of state as the corporation’s agent. The court also noted that New York law permits service on specified corporate officers, directors, managing or general agents, cashiers, assistant cashiers, or other agents authorized to receive service. Under either provision, however, delivering a summons to an unidentified “jane doe” was insufficient, even though the proof of service asserted that the recipient was an authorized manager.

Ruling and Further Deadlines

The court denied Tarr’s motion for default judgment for lack of proper service. It ordered Tarr to properly serve Lucio Battisti, Inc. and file proof of service by April 24, 2024. The court warned that failure to comply with its orders and prosecute the case could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The Clerk was requested to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 13 and 17.